Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Waltersgreen2 sentences2003In addition, “bringing a suit in tort does not allow [the plaintiff] to avoid the limitation of liability clause in the contract.” Id. 2000In Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Walters, 466 N.E.2d 55, 58 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), trans. denied, we stated that "[n]egligence does not constitute malfeasance.” However, in that case, the technical distinction between malfeasance and misfeasance was made because the trial court improperly awarded damages beyond the contract's limitation of liability clause based on its specific finding that the defendant’s actions amounted to tortious malfeasance. 4 . | 1 | 3 |
Young v. Tri-Etch, Inc.green2 sentences2004The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, noting that a "suit based in tort does not change the fact that Orkin's duty to [the plaintiff] is based on the contract." In addition, "bringing a suit in tort does not allow [the plaintiff] to avoid the limitation of liability clause in the contract." [ 3 ] Young, 790 N.E.2d at 458 (citations omitted). 2004In Tri-Etech a liquor store employee was beaten to death by a robber, and the store had a contract with Tri-Etch to maintain the store's security alarm system. 790 N.E.2d at 456-57 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Carlson v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences1994Id. 1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Orkin Exterminating Co. of South Florida v. Clark
green
1 sentence1984In Orkin Exterminating Co. of South Florida, Inc. v. Clark (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971), 253 So.2d 884 the court rejected a similar approach in the context of a liquidated damages clause. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Carr v. Hoosier Photo Supplies, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1983The Court of Appeals had found the limitation of liability clause involved in the case to be ineffective because there was an ambiguity in the wording of the clause that made it impossible to determine to whom it applied. 422 N.E.2d at 1277 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.